TREASURY

Parliamentary Questions (Costing)

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Treasury has conducted its annual indexation exercise of the cost of oral and written parliamentary questions so as to ensure that these costs are increased in line with increases in underlying costs. The revised costs, which will apply from today, are:
	Oral Question £425
	Written Questions £154
	The disproportionate cost threshold (DCT) will be increased to £800, also with effect from today.

G20 Framework (Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth)

Stephen Timms: As part of the new G20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth agreed at the Pittsburgh summit, the Treasury has today submitted its national template to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), setting out its national policy frameworks, programmes and projections for the medium term.
	This is in accordance with the mutual assessment process agreed by G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors at their meeting in St. Andrews in November 2009, which calls on the IMF to help with analysis of how the national and regional policy frameworks of the G20 members fit together.
	Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office and have been deposited in the Library of the House.

CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

Family and Relationships Policy

Edward Balls: Strong, stable families are the bedrock of our society. Families give children the love and security they need to grow up and explore the world, and the moral guidance and aspiration to make the most of their talents and be good citizens. And families are where most of us find the support and care necessary for a happy and fulfilling life-as children and adults, parents and grandparents too.
	"Support for All: The Family and Relationships" Green Paper seeks to reflect the reality of families today. There have been significant changes in family form and structure; there has been a trend towards smaller families and a growth in the number of step families. Increasing numbers of couples are cohabiting and more children are being born outside of marriage. Roles within the family have also changed with more women going into paid employment and more fathers becoming involved in caring for children.
	This Government's conviction is that it is both possible and necessary to develop policies to support all families without intruding into the privacy of family life. This means supporting families to help themselves, ensuring that all public services play their part in supporting strong and resilient family relationships, but also recognising that sometimes relationships fail and that some families need extra help.
	Marriage is an important and well-established institution that plays a fundamental role in family life in our society. However, marriage is a personal and private decision for responsible adults, with which politicians should not interfere. The Government support couples who choose to get married: for many families marriage offers the best environment in which to raise children, and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain.
	But families come in all shapes and sizes these days and the evidence is clear that stable and loving relationships between parents and with their children are vital for their progress and well-being. This was confirmed in the "Families in Britain: An Evidence Paper". The Government are therefore strongly committed to supporting all parents, grandparents and carers in sustaining strong and resilient relationships.
	This Green Paper sets out a wide range of measures to support all families as they bring up their children and to help families cope with times of stress and difficulty. They recognise that while all families need some help, there are families in our society with complex needs and others who require additional-and sometimes non-negotiable-support. Some of the policy proposals can be implemented straight away; others are for consultation or will take longer to put into place.
	This policy is informed by "Families in Britain: An evidence paper", published by my Department and the Prime Minister's strategy unit in 2008, as well as by many other pieces of independent research, carried out both here and abroad during the last 10 years. It has also been influenced by discussions with experts and leading voluntary organisations; and by the views and experiences of families themselves.
	All the proposals set out in this paper have been developed with a view to supporting stronger, more resilient families, who can help themselves and stronger, safer communities where families help each other.
	The consultation will remain open until 21 April 2010.
	Copies of this paper are available in the Libraries of both Houses and available electronically at: www.dcsf.gov .uk/supportforall.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local Government Finance 2010-11

Barbara Follett: I have today laid before the House the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2010-11. This report establishes the amounts of revenue support grant (RSG) and non-domestic rates (NDR) to be paid to local authorities in 2010-11, and the basis of their distribution. A draft of this report was issued for consultation on 26 November 2009.
	We received a total of 65 written responses from 58 individual authorities and formal and informal groupings of authorities during the consultation, and I met delegations from the Local Government Association, London Councils, and the County Councils Network.
	Having considered the views of the local authority associations and others who have commented on the provisional settlement, I have decided to confirm my proposals on the basis of distribution of formula grant for 2010-11.
	The final figures published today for 2010-11 confirm those originally published in January 2008. In line with Government's policy on multi-year settlements, it has always been clear that the settlement for 2010-11-as the third year of a three-year settlement-would not be changed from that previously published other than in exceptional circumstances. Having fully considered all the representations received during consultation I have not found such exceptional circumstances.
	The overall settlement represents a continued real-terms increase in investment in local government, which will allow authorities to continue to deliver improving services at an affordable cost. Total formula grant for 2010-11 will be £747 million, or 2.6 per cent., higher than in 2009-10 on a like-for-like basis. Specific grants, such as the Dedicated Schools Grant, are on top of these figures and bring the total increase in funding for local authorities to 4 per cent. in 2010-11. In our first 10 years up to 2007-08 we increased total Government grant by 39 per cent. in real terms. This provided 10 straight years of above inflation increases in Government grant for authorities overall. Over the current spending review period, we are providing an additional £8.6 billion to local government, an average 4 per cent. cash increase per year.
	I have also laid an order for the House's approval to cap Warwickshire police authority in advance for 2010-11, at a budget requirement which equates to council tax increases of around 3 per cent. in both 2009-10 and 2010-11. I am also putting all authorities on notice that the Government will not hesitate to cap any excessive council tax increases set by individual authorities in 2010-11 and that it would be a mistake for any authority to presume they will not be capped if they stay within the capping principles which applied in 2009-10. We have already initiated capping action against three police authorities in advance for 2010-11 to limit their council tax increases to around 3 per cent. No other decisions have been taken on capping for 2010-11, but we have made clear that we expect the average Band D council tax increase in England to fall to a 16-year low. The Government have maintained the three-year settlement in challenging economic circumstances and there can be no excuse for any authority setting an excessive council tax increase in 2010-11.
	I shall be sending copies of the Local Government Finance Report to all local authorities in England, and making available full supporting information on the Communities and Local Government website at:
	http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/1011/grant.htm.
	Copies of the report and related tables showing each authority's allocation of formula grant and other supporting material have been placed in the Vote Office.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Agriculture Council

Hilary Benn: The Minister responsible for the marine and the natural environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 14 and 16 December. Richard Lochhead MSP and Michelle Gildernew MLA also attended.
	On fisheries, Council agreed the annual fishing opportunities regulation for 2010 which sets fishing quota and effort limits, principally for the North sea, Irish sea, Channel, and Atlantic. Discussions were narrower than in previous years as technical and control measures are no longer included in this measure, since they are now subject to co-decision with the European Parliament. However, the recent failure of talks between the EU and Norway on the annual fisheries agreement meant that the regulation would need to find an interim mechanism to allow fishing of the stocks concerned. This led to unexpected complexity and difficulty in the final negotiations.
	The major points of interest to the UK in the final compromise included:
	commitments to the implementation of incentive catch quota, the detail to be determined following an EU-Norway agreement;
	only a 9 per cent. reduction in Irish sea nephrops;
	a quota reduction of 25 per cent. in West of Scotland Haddock (with 25 per cent. in 2011);
	a quota reduction of 5 per cent. for Western Channel sole;
	a 10 per cent. increase in quotas for North sea and West of Scotland megrim;
	no reduction in Celtic sea cod quota;
	a rollover of quota for North sea nephrops;
	agreement from the European Commission to look again at the technical measures re-imposed on the West of Scotland at the November Council.
	Following a ministerial lunch on animal health, discussions then turned to the substantive agriculture items. First, the Council took note of the Commission's report on options for animal welfare labelling and animal welfare reference centres; which was followed by a brief state of play report from the presidency on the negotiations to agree a revision to the current rules governing the welfare of laboratory animals (expressing confidence that a deal could be struck with the European Parliament early in 2010).
	Continuing a trend of set-piece discussions on the future of the CAP, the Commission then presented its views on rural development policy post-2013 (it should be greener, and better aligned with the Lisbon strategy), noting in summary that it saw no justification for continuing to finance Pillar II via modulation. Member states broadly welcomed the Commission's thoughts.
	Next, Council unanimously approved requests for state aid for agricultural restructuring from Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary. The UK, Denmark, Czech Republic, Estonia, Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Austria abstained.
	Council then reached partial political agreement on the timber due diligence regulation, though with further work needed on comitology provisions. The UK, Denmark, Spain and Belgium abstained, with the Netherlands voting against, because the final compromise did not include an express prohibition of the placing of illegally logged timber on the Community market. The dossier would now be handed over to future presidencies, starting with Spain, to handle negotiations with the European Parliament.
	Ministers took the opportunity to comment on the Commission's work on the 39 simplification proposals they had presented during the CZ presidency. A number of the proposals had been addressed, but others had not been taken up. Denmark tabled a letter suggesting further discussions on the outstanding proposals at a political level. There was general support for two UK concerns: (1) that the Commission needed to be more joined-up and look at burdens on farmers beyond DG Agri and include DG Sanco and DG Environment; and (2) that the Commission should take a more risk-based approach to audits and controls, including the way penalties were applied. Work on this dossier would continue.
	The Commission then presented the latest instalment of its dairy market quarterly report noting that both commodity prices and farm gate prices had risen, that EU production remained lower than in 2008, and that the market was likely to be in balance in 2010. They also made reference to the recently established dairy fund, as well as to deliberations on improving the dairy supply chain in the high-level group, as measures aimed at ameliorating the dairy crisis. The UK welcomed the positive trends and rising prices detailed in the report, urged the Council and Commission to focus on modernising the sector in preparation for the abolition of dairy quotas.
	The Commission presented its communication on a better functioning food supply chain, a follow-up to last December's report on food prices to the European Council. Its aim was to examine the contractual relations across the chain, to monitor the development of competition issues, and to provide the basis for further in-depth discussions during the Spanish presidency.
	Under any other business:
	The presidency presented its report of the conference of the EU paying agencies;
	Poland called for abolition of the sugar production charge (the UK argued against with Commission support);
	Slovakia called for transitional aid in the sugar sector to be targeted at the affected producers;
	The Commission informed Council of its recent agreement with the US and Latin countries, resolving long-standing banana disputes;
	Council took note of the progress made to update on EU food labelling rules;
	The Commission gave an update on the ongoing difficult negotiations with Russia on sanitary and phytosanitary issues;
	The Netherlands informed Council of the outcome of a conference on GM policy held in the Netherlands from 25 and 26 November.

Equine Infectious Anaemia

Hilary Benn: I wish to inform to the House that on 19 January 2010 the chief veterinary officer for the United Kingdom confirmed equine infectious anaemia (EIA) in two horses in Wiltshire following importation from Romania via Belgium.
	Two premises are currently under restriction and the two infected horses will be humanely destroyed in line with existing regulations.
	The animals arrived in a group of 10 horses, nine of which originated from Romania and one from Belgium. The nine Romanian horses were tested for EIA as part of routine post-import testing. Two of the horses tested positive, the remaining seven tested negative. The horse that originated in Belgium will be tested later today. As part of our control measures we will be undertaking a detailed epidemiological investigation.
	The risk of further spread among horses is considered by experts to be very low, but this will be kept under review pending further epidemiological investigation. Expert advice from the Health Protection Agency is that EIA is not a risk to human health and that there is no evidence that this incident presents a risk to the local community.
	This is the first case of equine infectious anaemia infected animals being imported into Great Britain since 1976 and shows the success of our post import testing regime. These were apparently healthy horses carrying a notifiable disease that we are keen to keep out of Great Britain.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Immigration and Nationality Services (Charges)

Phil Woolas: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is today laying regulations for the fees for immigration and nationality services that are set at levels above the normal administrative costs of the service. The Government review the fees on a regular basis and makes appropriate changes as necessary. We have continued with our strategic approach to charging; setting certain fees above cost on the basis of the value of the service.
	These fees must be set out in regulations before both Houses of Parliament and are subject to the affirmative procedure. The fees for these applications allow us to generate revenue which is used to fund the UK immigration system and to set certain fees below cost recovery to support wider Government objectives. The revenue generated will contribute towards the development and delivery of the new points based system, the rollout of ID cards for foreign nationals and investment in IT capability both overseas and in the UK. This coming year we will continue to strengthen that capability in underpinning technology and process improvement. For transparency, I have included the estimated unit cost for each route, so that it is clear the degree to which certain routes are set above cost.
	We have succeeded in limiting the extent of our general increases, by taking a more targeted approach to fees adjustment which is consistent with both the UK Border Agency's strategic charging principles, and also with broader Government objectives. We have made several amendments to the UK settlement fees and we have proposed a nominal 10 per cent. fee for all applications for UK-based dependants to reflect the fact that each individual brings a processing cost to us. Full details of all fees changes are outlined in the explanatory memorandum accompanying these regulations.
	Finally we will continue to generate revenue to fund the transitional impacts of migration. The migration impacts fund has played a vital role in helping ease the pressures on certain communities.
	I am publishing today the fees for immigration and nationality services that are set at levels above the normal administrative costs of the service alongside these regulations. I will announce our proposals for the fees for immigration and nationality fees that are set below the administrative costs of the service when we lay negative regulations in February 2010.
	Full details on how to apply for all of these services will be provided on our website, www.ukba.homeoffice. gov.uk.
	A table of fees for 2010-11 for immigration and nationality services that are set at levels above the normal administrative costs of the service is set out below:
	
		
			 Visa Fees 
			 Products 2009-10 Fees(£) Estimated Unit Cost for 2010-11 Proposed Fee for 2010-11 
			 Non PBS Visas 
			 Long-term visit visa (up to 2 yr) 215 140 230 
			 Long-term visit visa (up to 5 yr) 400 141 420 
			 Long-term visit visa (up to 10 yr) 500 155 610 
			 Settlement visa(*) 585 249 644 
			 Settlement Visa(*)- Dependent Relative 585 272 1680 
			 Other visa 215 115 230 
			 PBS Visas 
			 T1 (General, Investor/ Entrepreneur)(*) 675 332 690 
			 T1 (General/Entrepreneur) CESC(*) 615 332 629 
			 T2(*) 265 197 270 
			 T2 (CESC)(*) 245 196 250 
			 (*)The fees for these applications include a contribution of £50 to the migration impacts fund. 
		
	
	
		
			 IN UK - Leave to Remain and Nationality Fees 
			 Products 2009-10 Fees (£) Estimated Unit Cost for 2010-11 Proposed Fee  for 2010-11 Dependants Fee 
			 NON PBS ROUTES - Migrants Inside UK 
			 ILR Postal(*) 820 341 840 129 
			 ILR PEO(*) 1020 256 1095 154 
			 ILR Postal (CESC)(*) 750 341 767 121 
			 ILR PEO (CESC)(*) 920 256 992 144 
			 ILR Dependant Relative (Postal)(*) 820 341 1680 213 
			 ILR Dependant Relative (PEO)(*) 1020 256 1930 238 
			 Leave to Remain Non Student Postal(*) 465 419 475 92 
			 Leave to Remain Non Student PEO(*) 665 348 730 118 
			 FLR (I ED) Postal(*) 400 210 400 85 
			 FLR(IED)PEO(*) 600 210 650 110 
			 FLR (BUS)(*) 800 210 800 125 
			 Transfer of Conditions PEO 515 341 578 57 
			 Mobile Biometric Enrolment and Case-working (Premium+) 0 1982 15,000 N/A 
			 Nationality applications - Migrants Inside UK 
			 Nationality 6(1) Single(*) 640 208 655 N/A 
			 Nationality 6(1) Joint(*) 690 231 770 N/A 
			 Nationality 6(2)(*) 640 208 655 N/A 
			 Nationality Registration Adult(*) 460 208 470 N/A 
			 Nationality Registration Single Minors(*) 460 208 470 N/A 
			 Nationality Registration Multiple Minors(*) 510 255 567 97 
			 (*) The fees for these applications include a contribution of £50 per person to the migration impacts fund. 
		
	
	
		
			 IN - UK PBS Fees 
			 Products 2009-10 Fees(£) Estimated Unit Cost for 2010-11 Proposed Fee  for 2010-11 Dependants Fee 
			 PBS - Migrants Inside UK 
			 T1 (General) - Postal(*) 820 317 840 129 
			 T1 (General) - PEO(*) 1020 288 1095 154 
			 T1 (General/Entrepreneur) CESC Postal(*) 750 317 767 121 
			 T1 (General/Entrepreneur) CESC PEO(*) 920 288 992 144 
			 T1 (Invs or Ent) - Postal(*) 820 354 840 129 
			 T1 (Invs or Ent) - PEO(*) 1020 446 1095 154 
			 T1 (Post Study) - Postal 500 317 550 100 
			 T1 (Post Study) - PEO(*) 700 325 800 125 
			 Tier 1 (Transition) Postal(*) 400 259 408 85 
			 Tier 1 (Transition) PEO(*) 600 275 663 111 
			 T2 - Postal(*) 465 344 475 92 
			 T2 - PEO(*) 665 330 730 118 
			 T2 CESC Postal(*) 425 344 434 88 
			 T2 CESC PEO(*) 605 330 669 111 
			 T4 - PEO(*) 565 374 628 107 
			 T5 - PEO 515 369 578 57 
			 T5 CESC PEO 460 380 521 52 
			 (*)The fees for these applications include a contribution of £50 per person to the migration impacts fund. 
		
	
	
		
			 PBS Sponsorship and Certificate of Sponsorship Fees 
			 Products 2009-10 Fees(£) Estimated Unit Cost for 2010-11 Proposed 2010-11 fees(£) 
			 PBS Sponsorship and CoS Fees 
			 T2 Sponsor licence - medium/large business 1000 880 1000 
			 T2&4 Sponsor licence - medium/large business 1000 950 1000 
			 T2&5 Sponsor licence - medium/large business 1000 880 1000 
			 T2, 4 & 5 Sponsor licence - medium/large business 1000 950 1000 
			 T2 Certificate of Sponsorship 170 25 170

Police Authority Grant

David Hanson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, has today laid before the House the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2010-11 (HC 278), copies of which are available in the Vote Office. The report sets out my right hon. Friend's determination for 2010-11 of the aggregate amount of grant that he proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London Authority for the Metropolitan Police Authority.
	General police grant allocations, which include Home Office Police Grant and Department of Communities and Local Government/Welsh Assembly Government General Grant for each police authority for 2009-10 and 2010-11 are set out in the table.
	
		
			 Police Authority 2009-10 2010-11 Changeon 
			  FormulaAllocation(1) Allocation(1) 2009-10 FormulaAllocation 
			  £m £m % 
			 English Shire Authorities 
			 Avon & Somerset 179.7 186.1 3.5% 
			 Bedfordshire 70.8 73.1 3.3% 
			 Cambridgeshire 81.0 83.5 3.0% 
			 Cheshire 120.5 123.5 2.5% 
			 Cleveland 97.7 100.1 2.5% 
			 Cumbria 67.2 68.9 2.5% 
			 Derbyshire 112.6 116.2 3.1% 
			 Devon & Cornwall 186.4 191.1 2.5% 
			 Dorset 65.3 66.9 2.5% 
			 Durham 91.4 93.7 2.5% 
			 Essex 177.9 183.1 2.9% 
			 Gloucestershire 59.3 60.8 2.5% 
			 Hampshire 207.5 213.0 2.7% 
			 Hertfordshire 121.2 124.9 3.0% 
			 Humberside 128.4 131.8 2.6% 
			 Kent 192.1 197.4 2.7% 
			 Lancashire 204.1 209.7 2.7% 
			 Leicestershire 118.0 121.4 2.9% 
			 Lincolnshire 64.3 66.3 3.2% 
			 Norfolk 87.6 89.8 2.5% 
			 North Yorkshire 76.7 78.6 2.5% 
			 Northamptonshire 75.5 77.5 2.7% 
			 Nottinghamshire 141.4 146.0 3.3% 
			 Staffordshire 120.6 123.8 2.7% 
			 Suffolk 71.0 72.7 2.5% 
			 Surrey 101.8 104.4 2.5% 
			 Sussex 169.8 174.1 2.5% 
			 Thames Valley 238.2 244.7 2.8% 
			 Warwickshire 54.1 55.6 2.7% 
			 West Mercia 121.8 124.9 2.5% 
			 Wiltshire 65.2 66.8 2.5% 
			 Shires Total 3669.0 3770.0 2.8% 
			 English Metropolitan Authorities 
			 Greater Manchester 458.9 472.5 3.0% 
			 Merseyside 267.4 274.3 2.6% 
			 Northumbria 249.9 256.2 2.5% 
			 South Yorkshire 204.1 209.2 2.5% 
			 West Midlands 486.1 504.3 3.8% 
			 West Yorkshire 339.2 350.5 3.3% 
			 Mets Total 2005.7 2067.1 3.1% 
			 London Authorities 
			 GLA - Police 1978.3 2027.7 2.5% 
			 City of London(2) 21.0 21.8 N/A 
			 English Total 7674.0 7886.6 2.8% 
			 Welsh Authorities 
			 Dyfed-Powys(3) 54.4 55.8 2.5% 
			 Gwent(3) 82.6 84.7 2.5% 
			 North Wales(3) 80.1 82.1 2.5% 
			 South Wales(3) 181.5 186.4 2.7% 
			 Welsh Total 398.6 409.0 2.6% 
			 TOTAL 8072.6 8295.7 2.7% 
			 Notes (1) Rounded to the nearest £100,000. Grant as calculated under the Local Government Finance Report (England) and Local Government Finance (No.2 - Provisional Settlement Police Authorities) Report (Wales). Table includes the effects of floors and scaling.(2) Figures for the City of London relate to Home Office Grant only as calculated in the Police Grant Report (England and Wales). Revenue Support Grant is allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions. The City is grouped with education authorities for the purposes of grant floors. (3) Welsh figures include Home Office floor funding.

JUSTICE

Family Justice Review

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and I wish to make the following statement to the House about the launch of a review of the family justice system in England and Wales.
	The family justice system involves life changing decisions for many thousands of children and their families each year at a cost to the taxpayer of over £800 million. There have been some important elements of reform in recent years. But we need to be certain that the system, as it is currently set up, supports parents as fully as possible in establishing and maintaining a co-operative approach to agreeing future arrangements when relationships break down, and does not unwittingly cause additional stress at what will already be a difficult time. It is also important to ensure that valuable court time is focused on protecting the vulnerable from abuse, victimisation and exploitation and that the system is being managed as effectively as possible.
	We have therefore decided to initiate a review of the family justice system and have secured the agreement of the Welsh Assembly Government that, where appropriate, the review shall encompass the devolved functions of Welsh Ministers. Gwenda Thomas, Deputy Minister for Social Services, has made a similar statement to the National Assembly for Wales.
	The review will be conducted by a panel, comprising four representatives independent of Government and senior representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the Welsh Assembly Government as relevant for devolved matters.
	The review will be asked to make recommendations in two core areas: (1) what steps can be taken to promote informed settlement and agreement; and (2) whether improvements need to be made to the way in which the family justice system is managed.
	It will be guided by the following principles:
	The interests of the child should be paramount in any decision affecting them (and, linked to this, delays in determining the outcome of court applications should be kept to a minimum).
	The court's role should be focused on protecting the vulnerable from abuse, victimisation and exploitation and should avoid intervening in family life except where there is clear benefit to children and vulnerable adults in doing so.
	Individuals should have the right information and support to enable them to take responsibility for the consequences of their relationship breakdown.
	Mediation and similar support should be used as far as possible to support individuals themselves to reach agreement about arrangements, rather than having an arrangement imposed by the courts.
	The processes for resolving family disputes and agreeing future arrangements should be easy to understand, simple and efficient.
	Conflict between individuals should be minimised as far as possible.
	Copies of the full terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	We have asked for the review panel to provide a final report to us, as well as the Welsh Assembly Government Minister for Health and Social Services, in 2011.